An epistemic fault line underlies theories of corporate governance that separates positive from normative concepts. I analyze this fault line in order to show the importance of clarifying normative assumptions in governance models. I formulate an impossibility theorem for corporate governance that demonstrates how contemporary theories neglect normative concepts. Applying the theorem clears the way both for the better use of existing models and for the design of more epistemologically sophisticated models in the future.

We examine how and why donors divide gifts between people in the present (across distance) and between the present and future (across time). US donors tend to give less to charities that benefit the poor and more to charities that benefit the non-poor (such as museums, universities, and arts organizations). Many of these wealthier charities have created endowments that benefit not only present persons, but also future persons. We develop a shorthand framework for linking time to distance in charitable allocations that incorporates a "proximity preference," i.e., charity that prefers those who are nearer to us whether by reason of physical distance, psychic-identity, or temporal distance. Even though ethical considerations suggest that recipients' level of need should be the dominant factor in allocating gifts, donors also express preferences, ceteris paribus, for benefits arriving sooner rather than later, and for recipients who are ''closer'' rather than farther away.

The dynamic relationship between hypernorms and microsocial contracts can explain novel, evolutionary changes in economic life. The conceptual machinery of Integrative Social Contracts Theory (ISCT) can be expanded in order to understand dynamic moments in the evolution in economic life such as the economic crisis of 2008-2009. When a transition in the ethical interpretation of economic events occurs over time, it can be understood as a transition from the opaqueness of hypernorms to the relative clarity of microsocial contracts. This phenomenon deserves more study than it has received, and entails, at a minimum, the application of an enhanced, more dynamic interpretation of ISCT.

Most people knew Peter Drucker as the practical sage who gave how-to advice on stubborn problems in the real world. But few knew the other Drucker, an idealistic thinker who tried to solve one of the biggest puzzles of modern humanity. Drucker engaged in a lifelong quest to discover the key for integrating community into the business world, and the word, "community," was the single term that Drucker struggled most to fathom throughout his career. In the end he abandoned even markets as the solution for community and acknowledged defeat. Yet his final failure to connect community to business is instructive for it tells us not only about Peter Drucker, but about our current business/social dilemma

Hedge funds are targets of mounting ethical criticism. The most salient focuses on their opacity. Hedge funds are structured to block transparency for strategic reasons: that is, they systematically deny information to their own investors and to governments in order to protect their competitive advantage, even though the information they hide holds tremendous significance for the interests of both groups. In this article I will detail the ethical allegations made against hedge funds, showing why their opacity creates intractable conflicts that cannot be resolved through government regulation. Sometimes opacity be regulated away; but with hedge funds I show why it cannot because of `regulatory recalcitrance." In the end a form of voluntary moral coordination, a form of "microsocial contract" instituted as an industry standard, is required relief. In a word, the solution to hedge fund opacity is ethical.

The growing weight of academic research shows little or no correlation between having a sophisticated compliance system and code of ethics on the one hand, and avoiding ethical disaster on the other. Nor are most corporate ethical disasters cause by ethical greed-heads. Behind each one of the greed-driven leaders there were scores of other people inside their corporations who knew what was happening, and were necessary in making it happen. Still further, there were thousands of people outside those companies who played a supporting role. It is these people who lie at the bottom of the mystery of how triumphant corporations can fall so very hard. The following dangerous currents must be managed by corporate leaders and members of the board in order to prevent even ordinary people from doing bad things: 1. goal mesmerization, 2. blind precedents, 3. uncommon stress, 4. isolated teams of performers, 5. discussion vacuum, and 6. failure to anticipate challenges and develop appropriate principles/stories/examples/language.

Bankers need a new approach to business ethics in responding to challenges about whether to separate stock analysis from the other financial functions of financial services companies or whether to maintain relationships with socially discredited customers. The new approach to business ethics is one that exposes the implicit understandings or contracts that bind industries, companies and economic systems into communities. Integrative Social Contracts Theory is used to determine how accounting firms and banking institutions should deal with the increasing criticism alleging that new forms of conflict of interest impairs the objectivity of auditors and security analysts. This theory illuminates critical parts of ethical quandaries and goes a long way towards framing their proper analysis. As can be seen from an example of the Chinese walls controversy, which has its genesis in the history of earlier social contracts, the Integrative Social Contracts Theory need not eliminate all questions from a moral quandary.

The success of the stakeholder terminology and of its accompanying theory has not been accidental. Books, conferences, meetings with stakeholder groups, and finally the "Principles of Stakeholder Management," commonly referred to as the "Clarkson Principles," brought energy and interest to stakeholder research. Stakeholder theorists have challenged traditional views that lie at the nexus of modern economics and management theory. Among these challenged views is the special privilege of the goal of shareholder return, as well as the emphasis on the increasingly sophisticated tools devised to achieve it. No well-known writer on stakeholder theory has questioned the importance of shareholder value, buy many have written that theory and practice should at times balance the importance of the value of money with that of other values

It is argued that some nations manifest a competitive advantage deriving from key elements of their economic structure. Some nations are thus disposed by structure to possess what Michale Porter calls a competitive advantage of nations (1990). In this paper, the prospect of an ethical advantage of nations, and in particular, of a set of advantages that extend far beyond the simple dimension of trust is examined. Considered, further, is how such a range of ethical features would be structured, and what the implications of those features would be. Three conclusions are reached: 1. Morality may create economic advantages for nations in ways that extend beyond the notion of an idealized market. 2. In order for ethics to drive economic advantage, ethical concepts must rise to the status of intrinsic value. 3. If claims for national ethical success factors are true, then nations should attend to the issue of moral education.

This paper examines two issues about professionalism and business that appear at first blush to be entirely separate. The first is the question of who counts as a "professional," and whether, in particular, business people are "professionals." The second issue is how acknowledged professionals that regularly interact with business, such as accountants, lawyers, and physicians, can find the moral free space necessary to maintain professional integrity in the face of financial pressures. Conflicts of interest for professionals working in corporations recur with disturbing regularity, and often have serious consequences. In the end I will show how both issues share a common solution. The solution involves understanding the normative function of the manager in the modern corporation, a function, I will argue, made more conspicuous by work over the last two decades done in the areas of stakeholder theory, corporate social performance (CSP), and social contract theory. The remainder of the paper is devoted to articulating these two problems and clarifying their common solution

A response to Jones and Wicks' article, Convergent Stakeholder Theory, is presented. The glue that Jones and Wicks discover is not sufficiently long lasting. An argument on behalf of a stronger, reconstituted glue - one that relies on analyzing the psychology of the ordinary manager - is made.

Some activities are wrong no matter where they take place. Dumping pollutants for unprotected workers to handle is one example of a practice that violates core human values: respect for human dignity, respect for basic rights, and good citizenship. But some practices that are unethical in one part of the world might be ethical in another. What may feel like bribery to an American, for example, may be in keeping with Japan's long-standing tradition of gift giving. Many business practices are neither black nor white but exist in a gray zone, a moral free space through which managers must navigate. Levi Strauss and Motorola have helped managers by treating company values as absolutes and insisting that suppliers and customers do the same. And, perhaps even more important, both companies have developed detailed codes of conduct that provide clear direction on ethical behavior but also leave room for managers to use the moral imagination that will allow them to resolve ethical tensions responsibly and creatively.

The stakeholder theory has been advanced and justified in the management literature on the basis of its descriptive accuracy, instrumental power, and normative validity. These 3 aspects of the theory, although interrelated, are quite distinct; they involve different types of evidence and argument and have different implications. A study examines these 3 aspects of the theory and critique and integrate important contributions to the literature related to each. It is concluded that the 3 aspects of stakeholder theory are mutually supportive and that the normative base of the theory - which includes the modern theory of property rights - is fundamental.

Throughout its meteoric rise over the last 2 decades, the field of business ethics has been troubled by a lack of direction and has become entangled in its own logic. On the one hand, business ethics research can be informed by empirical ideas. On the other hand, business ethics research can be informed by normative concepts. These 2 approaches have produced 2 powerful streams of business research. The interconnection between empirical and normative research is advanced by the presentation of a normative theory, called integrative social contracts theory (ISCT). ISCT incorporates empirical findings as part of a contractarian process of making normative judgments. Derived from roots in classical and social contract theory, ISCT recognizes ethical obligations based upon 2 levels of consent: 1. to a theoretical "macrosocial" contract appealing to all rational contractors and 2. to real "microsocial" contracts by members of numerous localized communities.